Decided on January 06,1967

N.RAJAMMA Appellant


- (1.) The petitioner was the Matron of the After Care Hostel, Ernakulam from 26-3-1962, till 5-6-1964. A show cause notice (Ex. P 1) was issued to her by the Superintendent of the hostel (3rd Respondent) alleging that she was having illicit and unwholesome relations with certain males and had been repeatedly warned about it. It was stated that on 9-4-1964 when the Superintendent was not in the hostel, she invited one Vikraman Nair for tea and was warned by the Chairman of the Managing Committee (2nd respondent) for having done so. It was also stated that on 2-6-1964, the petitioner lived with Sri Vikraman Nair in Room No. 36 of the Woodlands Annexe, and on enquiries made, this was found to be true, and was also admitted to the Superintendent, by Vikraman Nair himself. On these allegations, the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation for the incident on 2-6-1964. Ext. P 2 is the copy of the petitioner's explanation in which she denied the charge and demanded an enquiry. Ext. P 3 is the further notice by the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the After Care Hostel for Women, by which the petitioner was informed that her explanation was unsatisfactory, and that the Committee had provisionally decided to dismiss her from service. She was asked to show cause against the same. Ext. P 4 is a copy of the petitioner's explanation in answer to Ext. P 3. She referred to her demand for an enquiry in Ext. P 2 and stated that if the same had been done, the charge would have been found to be baseless, and complained of Sri Vikraman Nair having been examined behind her back without affording her an opportunity to question him. By Ext. P 5, the petitioner's services were dispensed with from the date of suspension i.e. 5-6-1964. The petitioner's appeal to the Inspector General of Prisons (1st Respondent) was declined on the ground that the Inspector General cannot interfere in the matter, (vide Exts. P 7 and P 8). This O. P. is to quash Exts. P 6, P 7 and P 8 orders.
(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st and 3rd respondents, objection has been taken that the petitioner did not hold any "civil Post" and cannot claim protection under Art.311 of the Constitution. It is further stated that the petitioner was holding a non supervisory post to which appointment is made by the Managing Committee of the After Care Hostel and that such non supervisory personnel attached to the After Care Hostel are not Government Servants. The appointment order itself is alleged to have stated that it was purely provisional and that the appointment was not entitled to any rights except the emoluments attached to the post. It is alleged that the relationship between the Managing Committee and the petitioner is purely that of master and servant, and that the enforcement of any obligation arising from such relationship cannot be sought in writ proceedings. On the merits, it is stated that there had been due enquiry and no violation of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) It was contended that the petitioner was a Government servant within the principle of the decision in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Audh Narain Singh, AIR 1965 SC 360 ; but little has been made out to show that the Government had appointed the petitioner or had paid her remuneration or wages, or had control not only in the method of appointment, but also the mode and manner in which the work was to be done, or had the power to remove or suspend the petitioner from the employment. These were the indicia by which the Supreme Court concluded in AIR 1965 SC 360 that the Tahsildar was entitled to protection under Art.311 of the Constitution. None of these have either been pleaded or made out in the present case, in spite of the clear averments in the counter affidavit. There is the additional fact stated in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent that the Government had clarified the position that non supervisory personnel attached to the After Care Hostel are not Government Servants, in Memorandum No. 36857/B2/64-2/Home dated 29-10-1964. I overrule the contention that the petitioner is either a Government Servant or the holder of a civil post.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.